Gujarat High Court
Anitaben Mohanbhai Chavda vs State Of Gujarat on 16 June, 2021
Bench: Bhargav D. Karia
C/SCA/9027/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/06/2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9027 of 2017
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA
================================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed
to see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy
of the judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question
of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution
of India or any order made thereunder ?
================================================================
ANITABEN MOHANBHAI CHAVDA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 3 other(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
MR RONITH JOY FOR MR AJ YAGNIK(1372) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR K.M.ANTANI,AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3
MR MEET SHAH FOR MR AD OZA(515) for the Respondent(s) No. 4
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA
Date : 16/06/2021
ORAL JUDGMENT
Heard learned advocate Mr.Ronith Joy for learned
advocate Mr.A.J.Yagnik for the petitioner, learned
Assistant Government Pleader Mr.K.M.Antani for the
respondents-State and learned advocate Mr. Meet Shah
for learned advocate Mr.A.D.Oza for the respondent
No.4 through video conference.
C/SCA/9027/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/06/2021
1. Rule, returnable forthwith. Learned Assistant
Government Pleader Mr.K.M.Antani waives service of
notice of Rule on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 to 3
and learned advocate Mr.Meet Shah waives service of
notice of Rule on behalf of the respondent No.4
2. By this petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for
the following reliefs:
"(A) Be pleased to Issue a writ of Mandamus or a Writ in the
nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or
direction and by that means direct respondent authorities to
issue appointment order to petitioner herein for the post of
Shikshak Sahayak at Vanthali, District Junagadh as selected by
her, in the interest of justice.
(B) Be pleased to restrain respondent No.3 from filling up
one post of Shikshak Sahayak and keep the post vacant in
School allotted to the petitioner herein by Respondent No.3 in
the interest of justice.
(C) Be pleased to award the cost of this petition.
(D) Such other and further relief/s which the Honourable
Court may deem fit, just and proper be granted in the facts
and circumstances of the present case and in the interest of
justice."
3. Brief facts of the case are that :
3.1. The respondent No.2-Commissioner of Schools
published an advertisement dated 12.04.2016 inviting
on-line application from Graduate/Post-Graduate and
B.Ed candidates for the post of Shikshak Sahayak for
the subjects of Gujarati, Hindi, English, Accountancy
and Business etc. in Non-Government granted Higher
C/SCA/9027/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/06/2021
Secondary Schools for teaching in Gujarati as well as
English medium. The petitioner who belongs to
SEBC(female) category being eligible and possessing
requisite qualifications, submitted on-line
application to the respondent No.2 pursuant to the
advertisement published by the respondent No.2.
3.2. It is the case of the petitioner that the
petitioner cleared Bachelor of Commerce with Accounts
and Computer Science subjects and Master of Commerce
with Costing and Accounts and B.Ed from Saurashtra
University.
3.3. The petitioner also appeared in the Teachers
Aptitude Test (TAT) Examination and cleared the same
with Accounts subject. The petitioner was selected in
the District Selection List of Candidates who have
been selected as Higher Secondary Teacher (Grant-in-
Aid Schools) and her name appeared in the said list
with total merit of 64.44 marks and was selected to
Junagadh District in Open Category.
3.4. The petitioner remained present before the
respondent No.3 on 03.12.2016 pursuant to the
intimation posted on the website of the respondent
No.1 on 02.12.2016 informing the candidates to
personally remain present for the allotment of the
School at which the petitioner was to be appointed.
The petitioner opted for Nagar Panchayat School,
Vanthali, District: Junagadh.
C/SCA/9027/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/06/2021
3.5. It appears that thereafter respondent No.3
issued appointment orders to about 18 candidates who
were possessing the Degree Certificates issued by the
Universities situated in the State of Gujarat. The
Degree Certificate of the M.Com issued to the
petitioner by Saurashtra University was also sent for
verification, however, the petitioner was not issued
appointment order by the respondent No.3 even though
she was selected and her name appeared in District
Selection List declared by the respondent No.2. The
petitioner therefore applied for necessary
information under the Right to Information Act, 2005.
The petitioner by letter dated 19.02.2016 requested
the respondent No.3-District Education Officer to
issue appointment order. The petitioner also
submitted representations on 20.12.2016 and
23.03.2017 to the Commissioner of Schools and
Secretary, Education Department respectively with
request to issue appointment order for the post of
Shikshak Sahayak. However, no decision was taken by
any authority and therefore, the petitioner has
preferred the petition.
4.1. Learned advocate Mr.Ronith Joy submitted that
the petitioner is entitled to get the appointment
order of Shikshak Sahayak at Vanthali,
District:Junagadh as selected by her because the
petitioner is having education qualification in
Graduate with Accounts, M.Com with Accounts and TAT
also with Accounts and in spite of such
qualifications the petitioner is held to be not
C/SCA/9027/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/06/2021
eligible for appointment only on the ground that the
petitioner was not having Accounts as a main subject
at the Post Graduate level as the petitioner has
cleared M.Com with Costing as a main subject.
4.2. Learned advocate Mr.Ronith Joy submitted that in
the case of similarly situated persons the Co-
ordinate Bench of this Court has held that if the
person has passed concerned subject at Graduate and
Post-Graduate level, it would be of no consequence
whether it is a principle subject or optional
subject. Reliance was placed on the decision of the
Co-ordinate Bench of this Court dated 24.01.2020 in
case of Shah Kalpesh Kanubhai Versus Gujarat
Secondary And Higher Education Teaching & 2 Others in
Special Civil Application No.18767 of 2017 which was
confirmed by the Division Bench in Letters Paten
Appeal No.138 of 2021 by order dated 23.02.2021.
4.3. It was therefore submitted that the case of the
petitioner is squarely covered by the aforesaid two
decisions and the petition is required to be
allowed.
5.1. On the other hand learned Assistant Government
Pleader Mr.K.M.Antani submitted that the notification
dated 11th February, 2011, Annexure R1 to the
affidavit-in-reply, provides education qualification
for the Teacher for Higher Education. Referring to
the Annexure R1 it was submitted that Teacher
applying for Higher Education is required to have
C/SCA/9027/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/06/2021
Post Graduate Degree in the concerned subject and
B.Ed or M.Ed. It was therefore submitted that the
petitioner has passed Post Graduate Examination with
Costing as principal subject. Though Accounts is an
optional subject, the same is rightly not considered
by the respondent authority as the petitioner cannot
be said to be a specialized in Accounts and therefore
the petitioner would not be entitled to be appointed
as Sikshak Sahayak.
5.2. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Antani
relied upon the averments made in the Sur-rejoinder
on behalf of the respondent No.2 to submit that in
the advertisement dated 12.04.2016 it was
categorically mentioned that required qualification
for the post of teacher is to be in consonance with
the notification of the State Government dated 11th
February, 2011 and therefore when the said
notification prescribes qualification in a concerned
subject and in the facts of the case as the
petitioner has passed Post Graduation with Costing as
a principal subject it cannot be said to have a
qualification with concerned subject though the
petitioner studied Accounts as an optional subject at
Post Graduate level.
5.3. Reference was also made to the education
qualification referred to in the Government
Resolution dated 28.10.1975 to submit that the said
Resolution prescribes the education qualification of
teaching staff. Attention of this Court was invited
C/SCA/9027/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/06/2021
to the Paragraph No.5 of the said resolution to point
out that the ratio of teachers to class is 2:1.
Trained Teachers having Second Class Master's Degree
in respective subject or Trained Graduate Teachers
who have experience of teaching concerned subject for
about seven years are treated to have the requisite
qualification. It was therefore submitted that in the
facts of the case as the petitioner is qualified as
Post Graduate Commerce with Costing as a principle
subject, she cannot be said to be having Post
Graduate Degree in respective subject. Reliance was
also placed on the decision of the Apex Court in case
of Ganpath Singh Gangaram Sing Rajput Vs. Gulbarga
University reported in 2014 (3) SCC 767. Learned
Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Antani relied upon
the Paragraph No.18 of the Judgment of the Supreme
Court to submit that in the facts of the said case
though applications were invited for filling up
various posts of different subjects including the
post of Lecturer in Masters of Computer Applications,
in the advertisement required Post Graduate Degree in
relevant subject and therefore the relevant subject
would be in the context of appointment to the post of
Lecturer, mean Post Graduate in MCA. However, in the
facts of the said case the appellant was having
Masters Degree in Mathematics which was not a
relevant subject and therefore, the Supreme Court in
context of analyzing the "relevant subject" held in
favour of the University to hold that Masters Degree
in Mathematics is not equivalent to the Masters
Degree in Computer Application and therefore the
C/SCA/9027/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/06/2021
appellant was held to be unqualified and ineligible
person for appointment as Lecturer in MCA. It was
therefore submitted that in the facts of the case
when the petitioner is having Post Graduate Degree in
Costing and not in Accounts she cannot be held to be
eligible for the post of teacher in Accounts for
imparting higher education to the students.
6. Learned advocate Mr.Meet Shah submitted that the
petitioner is not having the qualification as
prescribed in the advertisement as per the TAT Title
and Code Education issued by the respondent No.4.
Learned advocate Mr.Shah invited the attention of the
Court to Sr.No.59 at Page No.81 which provides Code
for TAT for Higher Secondary Teacher
(Accounts/Commerce) and Code for Education refers to
B.Com with Accounts and Audit or Business
Administration and M.Com with Accounts and Audit or
Business Administation plus B.Ed or Equivalent.
Referring to the aforesaid qualification it was
submitted that as the petitioner has not passed M.Com
with Accounts and Audit or Business Administration
she is not eligible for the post of Teacher of
Accounts for Higher Education Schools. Learned
advocate Mr.Shah referred to the averments made in
the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the
respondent No.4 and submitted that pursuant to the
communications dated 25.04.2017 of the
Commissionerate of Schools, the respondent No.4 Board
vide communication dated 07.07.2017 and 19.07.2017
has given a reply wherein, it is stated that as per
C/SCA/9027/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/06/2021
the Government Resolution dated 11.02.2011, the
candidate is required to possess Graduation degree as
well as master degree in the "concerned subject"
which means that the candidate is required to have
graduation and master's degree in the subject for
which the application is made. It was submitted that
as the petitioner is having qualification of B.Com
with Computer Science and M.Com with Costing and B.Ed
with Accounts and Economics, whereas, she has applied
for TAT examination in the subject of Accounts and
Commerce and hence, there is inconsistency in the
subject for which the application for TAT examination
was made and Computer Science cannot be considered
equivalent to the subject of Accountancy and Business
(Account and Commerce) as the same are not
interrelated. Learned advocate Mr.Shah further relied
upon the Government Resolution dated 11th February,
2011 to point out that for the post of Higher
Secondary Teachers candidates must be having graduate
and post graduate qualification with "concerned
subject". It was submitted that in the facts of the
case as the petitioner has B.Com in Computer Science
and M.Com in Costing subject while the advertisement
was not for the subject of either Computer Science or
Costing, the petitioner is not eligible for the post
of Higher Secondary Teacher for Accountancy and
Business. Reliance was placed on the decision dated
12th March, 2018 of the Co-ordinate Bench of this
Court in Special Civil Application No.20839 of 2016
in case of Chaudhari Dhananjay Popatlal Vs. State of
Gujarat and it was submitted that the petitioner is
C/SCA/9027/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/06/2021
not eligible to be appointed as Higher Secondary
Teacher as the petitioner is not qualified. Reliance
is placed on the following paragraphs of the said
judgment:
"19. The form which is submitted by the petitioner also
indicates that the petitioner is B.A. with History, M.A. with
History, B.Ed. & M.Ed. The form which is submitted by the
petitioner online which is on record is admittedly for the
post of Sikshan Sahayak in Sociology. In view of the aforesaid
therefore, the petitioner does not possess any graduation
degree or post graduation degree in Sociology, which is the
concerned subject and in absence of such qualification, the
petitioner becomes ineligible for the post of Sikshan Sahayak
in Sociology. It is true that in TAT examination the
petitioner has appeared for Sociology and has cleared the
same, however, the essential and required qualifications are
"graduation and post graduation in concerned subject, i.e., in
Sociology" and the same is sine qua non for being considered
for appointment as Sikshan Sahayak and any departure from that
would render such appointment dehors the Rules.
20. The contention that at the time of appointment, the
website did not reflect the post of Sikshan Sahayak in History
is nothing short of figment imagination on the part of the
petitioner and the same is without any evidence or data and
the same deserves to be rejected outrightly as an
afterthought. The standards of 8th , 9th end 10th are very
important years in life of a student and if the authorities
insist that the teacher who is selected for such standard as
well as for Higher Secondary Standard which is 11 th and 12th
standard, which are more important phase of education in the
life of a student, a person who has expertise in specialised
subject and with graduation in concerned subject and post
graduation in the concerned subject, cannot in any manner be
considered to be improper. On the contrary, in opinion of this
Court, such specialisation has been rightly insisted by the
respondent authorities and a person like the present
petitioner who is specialised in History is permitted to be a
teacher of Sociology, the same is likely to adversely affect
the career of the students and therefore, non-consideration of
candidature of the petitioner is not in any manner illegal and
dehors of any law.
21. Even the contention that B.A. with History is equivalent
to B.A. in Sociology is nowhere provided and in the instant
case, the petitioner having degree in B.A. & M.A. in History
cannot be said to have acquired graduation and post graduation
which is equivalent to Sociology by any stretch of imagination
and therefore, as the Resolution dated 11.02.2011 clearly
C/SCA/9027/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/06/2021
provides for bare minimum requirements and the required
qualification as prescribed in it as graduation subject, post
graduation in concerned would definitely mean that in
concerned subject, the candidate who possesses graduation and
post graduation in the concerned subject, as in the instant
case sociology can only be considered for the post of Sikshan
Sahayak in Sociology. Only because the petitioner has passed
examination of TAT in Sociology would not take the case of the
petitioner any further as such requirement is an additional
requirement."
7. In view of the above decision of this Court it
was submitted that the facts of the petitioner are
squarely covered by the aforesaid decision and the
decision relied upon by the petitioner in case of
Shah Kalpesh Kanubhai (Supra) would not be
applicable.
8. Having considered the rival submissions and
having gone through the materials on record it is not
in dispute that the petitioner has cleared her B.Com
with Accounts and Computer Science, M.Com in Costing
and Accounts, TAT in Accounts and B.Ed with Accounts
and Economics, thus petitioner has studied Accounts
at Graduate and Post graduate level. Similar
controversy arose before this Court in case of Shah
Kalpesh Kanubhai (Supra) wherein, the petitioner of
the said case was having graduation course in B.Sc.
with principle subject of statistics and other
subjects as Maths and Physics and he applied for the
post of Higher Secondary Teacher in subjects of Maths
and Science. It was held by the Co-ordinate Bench of
this Court that the "concerned subject" cannot be
given a restricted meaning especially in the context
of the case on hand and admittedly the petitioner
C/SCA/9027/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/06/2021
pursued B.Sc with Maths subject. The relevant
observation of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in
the said order reads as under :
"Considering the issue at hand, admittedly, the petitioner had
applied for the subjects of Maths and Science. The stand of
the respondent is that he did not possess the requisite
qualification in the concerned subject and, therefore, though
having given sufficient weightage for TAT, he was rightly
assessed as 00.00 in the graduation subject. Perusal of the
mark-sheet of the petitioner, when she underwent the
graduation course in B.Sc., would suggest that though the
principal subject of the petitioner was Statistics, Maths and
Physics are the subjects which he had also studied. Therefore,
the concept 'relevant subject' or 'concerned subject' cannot
be given a restricted meaning especially in the context of the
case on hand when admittedly the petitioner did pursue degree
of B.Sc. with Maths subject. Though Statistics was a principal
subject, it had the traits of Maths as is evident from the
mark-sheet."
9. In the facts of the present case also the
petitioner has graduate and post graduate degree with
Accounts subject though Costing was the principle
subject at post graduate level. Thus, it cannot be
said that the petitioner was not graduate and post
graduate with Accounts as prescribed in Annexure-A to
the Government Resolution dated 11th February, 2011.
The Division Bench while dismissing the Letters
Patent Appeal No.138 of 2021 arising out of the
decision of the learned Single Judge in the case of
Shah Kalpesh Kanubhai (Supra) has held as under :
"6.1. It is not in dispute that the original
writ petitioner is possessing the qualification of B.Sc.
B.Ed., and was permitted to appear in TAT examination with the
subjects in which he studied which has weightage of 70% in the
process of recruitment and after the merit list having been
prepared, the appellant authority has given merit to the
original petitioner of 55.87% and then called at Dahod,
District Eduction Office, on 28.06.2017 and was specifically
C/SCA/9027/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/06/2021
informed that the original petitioner is to be appointed at
Gayatri School and Higher Secondary School at Kharoda District
: Dahod. These entire proceedings having been adopted and
subsequent thereto, it appears that the appointment
came to be denied of late and for the first time in the writ
proceedings, a stand is taken by the appellant authority that
the original writ petitioner is not having
subjects of Maths/Science at graduation level and since the
respondent - original petitioner is having Statistic subject
at B.Sc., level as a principal subject, the respondent -
original petitioner was found to be not eligible. This
stand which has been taken by the appellant
authority has been examined at length by the learned Single
Judge and on the basis of the material on record, the learned
Single Judge had critically analyzed the documents as well as
interpreted the Regulation 20 and has come to the
conclusion that a case is made out by the original petitioner.
We may reproduce the said conclusion arrived at by the learned
Single Judge hereinafter :
"11.Considering the issue at hand, admittedly, the
petitioner had applied for the subjects of
Maths and Science. The stand of the respondent
is that he did not possess the requisite
qualification in the concerned subject and,
therefore, though having given sufficient weightage for
TAT, he was rightly assessed as 00.00 in the graduation
subject. Perusal of the marksheet of the
petitioner, when she underwent the graduation course
in B.Sc., would suggest that though the principal
subject of the petitioner was Statistics, Maths
and Physics are the subjects which he had also studied.
Therefore, the concept `relevant subject' or
`concerned subject' cannot be given a restricted meaning
especially in the context of the case on
hand when admittedly the petitioner did pursue degree of
B.Sc. With Maths subject. Though Statistics was a
principal subject, it had the traits of Maths as is
evident from the marksheet.
12. Regulation 20 of the Government Secondary Education ,
1974 was though cited as not being applicable in the case
of Patel Shilpaben Viththalbhai (Supra), the Court
in the judgment has extensively so discussed the
regulation.
13. Regulations 7, 11(1), 11(2) and 11(3) of
the 18.4.2012 notification read as under:
7.Eligibility for appointment:
To be eligible for appointment as
Teacher, a candidate shall possess
C/SCA/9027/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/06/2021
(a) requisite educational qualifications and age in
accordance with the provisions of
regularisation 20 of the Gujarat Secondary and Higher
Secondary Education Regulations, 1974; and
(b) basic knowledge of computer application as
prescribed in subrule 1(A) of the rule 8 of the
Gujarat Civil Services Classification and
Recruitment (General) Rules, 1967; Provided that the
age limit shall be relaxed in favour of a
candidate belonging to the Scheduled Caste,
Scheduled Tribes, Socially and Educationally
Backward Class and Women in accordance with the
provision of the Gujarat Civil Services
Classification and Recruitment (General) Rules, 1967.
11. Select list
(a) The selection committee shall prepare a list of
successful candidates on the basis of weightage of
70% marks of the marks secured by the
concerned candidate in TAT.
(b) The marks secured by the concerned
candidate in TAT shall be valid for five years from
the date of the result of the TAT.
(c) The candidate who has secured at least 50% marks
in TAT shall be considered as qualified candidate for
TAT weightage.
(d) A candidate shall be allowed to appear in TAT for
three times. A candidate who after availing the
first attempt also avails second or third
successive attempt within the period of
five years from the date of the result
of the first attempt, the average marks
obtained by such candidate in such attempts shall be
considered for preparation of the select list, as
explained in Appendix - II.
(2) The weightage of 30% will be given, out of the
marks secured in the prescribed educational
qualification for the respective post as specified in
AppendixII.
(3) The maximum marks for the qualification
for the purpose of weightage of 30% shall be as
prescribed in AppendixI.
14. Reading of such regulations would make it evident that
the interpretation of the State in restricting, in the
case on hand to hold that Statistics cannot be relevant
subject for the teaching of Maths has no nexus to the
objectives to be achieved. In the judgment of Patel
Shilpaben Viththalbhai (Supra), admittedly, the
controversy was with regard to the teacher of the
Geography when the subject in which the petitioner had
done his graduation was history. The said
C/SCA/9027/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/06/2021
judgment would therefore not be of much help so far as the
words `concerned subject' as in the case on hand. From the
marksheet of B.Sc. Degree, it is evident that the
petitioner had undergone Maths subject."
6.2. On the basis of the aforesaid conclusion and the material
on record, we had examined the rival submissions made by the
learned counsel appearing for the respective parties
and we found that the view taken by the learned Single
Judge is a possible view and as such, in peculiar background
of this case, such possible view, we are not inclined to
disturb in absence of any distinguishable material.
6.3. On the issue of Regulation 20, which has been pressed
into service by the learned Assistant Government Pleader, a
close scrutiny of the said Regulation and the amended Rules
referred to on page 51 vide Notification, we may observe that
by the said material, the issue has been dealt with by the
learned Single Judge and after dealing with the said
contention, possible view is taken and as such we are not
inclined to disturb the findings arrived at by the learned
Single Judge.
6.4. Additionally, we have found from the pleadings that there
is specific contention raised by the appellants
that the respondent - original petitioner is not
having the concerned subject qualification, but to
substantiate the same, we are surprised that even the
advertisement is also not produced by the appellant which was
published for inviting application and as such, reading
Regulation 20 in literal form on the basis of any other
material, we are not in a position to dislodge the possible
finding arrived at by the learned Single Judge. We have
further noticed that the conclusion arrived at by
the learned Single Judge to the effect that the
marksheet of B.Sc., degree is indicating that the
original petitioner had undergone the subject of Maths and as
such, when no other material is produced by the appellant
authorities to indicate that there was any
specification in the advertisement, we are unable
to take a different view. In the context of the aforesaid
circumstance, the decisions delivered by the coordinate
Benches of this Court in respect of the writ petitioners, are
having different background of facts and having carefully
considered the rival submissions, looking to the scope
of Letters Patent Appeal on the basis of the material on
record, we are not inclined to disturb the possible view taken
by the learned Single Judge. The scope of Letters Patent
Appeal is well defined by the Apex Court in the case of
Management of Narendra & Company Private Limited v.
Workmen of Narendra & Company reported reported in
(2016) 3 SCC 340 and the relevant observations contained
in para 5 of the said decisions, is reproduced below:
C/SCA/9027/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/06/2021
"5. Once the learned Single Judge having seen the records
had come to the conclusion that the industry
was not functioning after January, 1995, there is no
justification in entering a different finding
without any further material before the Division
Bench. The Appellate Bench ought to have noticed that the
statement of MW 3 is itself part of the evidence before
the Labour Court. Be that as it may, in an intracourt
appeal, on a finding of fact, unless the Appellate Bench
reaches a conclusion that the finding of the Single Bench
is perverse, it shall not disturb the same. Merely,
because another view or a better view is possible, there
should be no interference with or disturbance of the order
passed by the Single Judge, unless both sides agree for a
fairer approach on relief."
10. The decision of the Apex Court in case of
Ganpath Singh Gangaram Sing Rajput (Supra) relied
upon by the learned Assistant Government Pleader
Mr.Antani would also not be applicable to the facts
of the case as in the said case the appellant was
having Masters Degree in Maths whereas, requirement
in the advertisement was that of Masters Degree in
Computer Applications and therefore, the Supreme
Court held that Masters Degree in Maths cannot be
said to be "relevant subject" for the post graduate
degree in Master of Computer Applications as the post
which was applied by the appellant in that case was
for the Lecturer for Master of Computer Applications.
The facts of the present case are different as the
petitioner studied Accounts at Graduate and Post
Graduate level and therefore, it cannot be said that
the petitioner is not having Graduate and Post
Graduate Degree with "concerned subject".
11. In view of the foregoing reasons, the petition
succeeds and is accordingly allowed. The respondents
are directed to issue the appointment order to the
C/SCA/9027/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/06/2021
petitioner for the post of Sikshak Sahayak at
Vanthali, District:Junagadh as selected by her or any
other vacant place as per her choice and availability
of the post of Higher Secondary Teacher in Accounts
subject within four weeks from the date of receipt of
this order. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid
extend. No order as to costs.
(BHARGAV D. KARIA, J)
PALAK
